In a recent legal proceeding of Sonika Vishnudas Kadam Vs Vishnudas Haribhau Kadam & Others, the Bombay High Court addressed a criminal application filed under Section 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The applicant, seeking the transfer of a Domestic Violence (D.V.) case from the court in Junnar to Thane, presented several arguments related to her current place of residence and the hardships associated with traveling to the court located in Junnar. The case has broader implications on how courts evaluate transfer requests in domestic violence matters and related legal contexts.
Case Background:
The applicant in this case had been married to the first respondent on April 26, 2016, and had lived with him in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, before being ousted from the matrimonial home in September 2016. Following her ousting, the applicant moved to her uncle’s residence in Dingare, Taluka Junnar, District Pune, and filed a Criminal M.A. No. 17 of 2017 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) seeking interim relief. The proceedings, initially filed in Junnar, were based on the threats and harassment faced by the applicant.
However, the applicant subsequently moved to Thane, citing the convenience of her new residence and the distance between Junnar and her current home. The application requested the transfer of the case to a Judicial Magistrate in Thane, closer to where the applicant and her mother were residing.
Legal Arguments Presented:
The applicant’s legal counsel argued that Junnar, approximately 155 km away from her residence, posed significant logistical challenges and inconveniences. Furthermore, they emphasized the applicant’s right to seek relief in a location that offered practical accessibility to justice. They pointed out that the applicant’s relocation from Mumbai to Junnar was primarily driven by safety concerns, and her subsequent move to Thane was for similar reasons.
On the other hand, the respondents contested the application. They argued that the applicant’s plea for convenience did not constitute a valid legal reason for transferring the case. The respondents referenced a decision in Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 4 SCC 217, where it was emphasized that inconvenience alone cannot be a sufficient reason for transferring a criminal case. They also cited another ruling, Sow. Archana W/o. Sachin Deshmukh vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021), where the court had rejected a transfer request due to a similar claim of inconvenience, highlighting that transfer should not be granted based merely on the parties' convenience.
Court's Analysis:
The court closely examined the facts, including the applicant's residence at Ghatkopar and her move to Junnar due to threats from her husband and his family. Despite the respondent’s claims that the applicant’s appeal was based on inconvenience, the court found the circumstances compelling. The applicant’s residence at Thane was significant, as it was more accessible to her, considering the travel distances to Junnar and the applicant’s safety concerns.
The court also found that the respondent’s claim of residing in Pune, as argued by his counsel, lacked documentary evidence, and the respondent’s previous legal proceedings were filed in Mumbai. This further established that the respondent's links were firmly tied to Mumbai, supporting the applicant’s case for a more accessible court venue.
Legal Precedents and Section 407 of the CrPC:
The court referred to Section 407 of the CrPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer criminal cases when it is expedient for the ends of justice. The factors considered under this section include the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the potential for a fair trial, and logistical aspects, such as travel burdens on the complainant or the accused.
The court also referenced the Rajesh Talwar case, which emphasized that inconvenience alone should not dictate the transfer of criminal proceedings. However, it was clear from the facts of this case that practical considerations, including the applicant’s safety and the distance between the two locations, were valid grounds for considering the transfer.
Judgment:
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant, ordering the transfer of Criminal M.A. No. 17 of 2017 from the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Junnar to the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thane, in accordance with Section 407(1)(c) of the CrPC. The decision was made in the interest of justice, taking into account the practical challenges faced by the applicant in attending court proceedings in Junnar and the overall convenience of the parties.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the importance of accessibility and convenience for victims of domestic violence, particularly when it comes to legal proceedings. It highlights how courts balance legal principles with the real-life challenges faced by individuals, especially women, in seeking justice under the Domestic Violence Act. The ruling sets a precedent for considering the geographical and emotional burdens placed on victims while ensuring that justice is not delayed or obstructed due to administrative hurdles.
The case also reinforces the discretion of courts in transferring cases to ensure fairness, with due consideration given to the circumstances surrounding each case.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 407., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
